Sri.Mani's non-sequitor

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani,

Aristotle, the philosopher, was a bit of an astronomer and mathematician

too. His view of the universe was uncompromisingly geo-centric. To the

Christian church the geo-centric view of the universe was holy cow and the

suggestion of helio-centric theories was sacrilege right until the time of

Copernicus and Galileo. Galileo's theories of physics and astronomy too were

not perfect although by his time the helio-centric vision of the solar

galaxy was settled scientific fact. Not until the time of Newton were some

of the unsolved questions of astronomy and physics of Galileo's times put to

rest. Newtonian physics had its own limitations until Einstein's General

Theory of Relativity overcame them.

 

In the history of the evolution of ideas Aristotle does not stand condemned

because he had views utterly opposed to Copernicus.

 

When we praise Galileo it does not mean that we mean any disrespect to

Einstein.

 

If the students of Einstein had raised a hue and cry everytime the name of

Newton was uttered in their presence, it is doubtful if E=mc2 would ever

have been formulated.

 

Newton himself once said that if he saw more truth in the universe than any

other astronomer or physicist before him it was only because he was taller

than they and that was because "he stood on the shoulders of Aristotle,

Kepler,Copernicus and Galileo". Newton was humble enough to acknowledge how

much he owed to his precursors although in many respects Newtonian truth

owed nothing of its validity to their own work.

 

In much the same way, I believe, in the history of the Vedic times of India

there were many great souls like Sankara and others who fought to establish

the primacy of the Vedic system of thought over alien anti-Vedic ideology.

You may not agree with their thesis. Subsequent refinements to Vedic faith

and Vedantic thought ... like those made by Sri.Ramanuja and the "bhakti"

traditionalists may be arguably superior or more "true" or "more faithful to

the Vedic ideal".That's a different matter altogether. But you simply cannot

doubt or belittle the historical contribution of Sankara and his

contemporaries to the restoration of Vedic idealism and ethos in India.

 

I am a SriVaishnava both by birth and conviction. I admire the philosophy of

Sri.Ramanuja and the poetry of the Alwars and Swami Desikan. My esteem for

them has never diminished on account of the admiration that I have also felt

for the great "AchAryA-s" of other "sampradAyA-s" like Advaita or Dvaita.

 

It has always therefore been a wonder of wonders for me to see why otherwise

extremely intelligent SriVaishnavas like Sri.Mani Varadarajan always have

this strange psychology of "us Vs them" and simply cannot tolerate something

even blandly positive being said about Sankara. It is almost like some

student of Einstein getting extremely indignant at the very mention of the

name of Aristotle or Newton!

 

I have heard of the SriVaishnava ideal of "guru-bhakti" and

"guru-vishvAsam". It is very laudatory indeed. But, tell me, does the ideal

enjoin us all to hold the "AchAryA-s" of other Vedantic persuasions in such

utter contempt that we must hold up our noses when their very names are

mentioned ... as though the very air around us is fouled as a result? What

kind of "guru-bhakti" is this?

 

Sri.Mani, in my series on the LNKS (if you have noticed!) I have not tried

to discuss so much the philosophy as the poetry of Sankara. I have tried my

very best to strike a non-sectarian and non-denominational approach. If I

have words of praise for Sankara it is for his poetry.

 

But from your comments I gather I have crossed the boundary and committed

the unspeakable sin of praising Sankara personally. But what I think is that

a harmless remark about an objective fact of history that I made about

Sankara bhagavathpAdA in my last post has sparked you into starting what I

think will now be another round of "SriVaishnava-Advaitin" polemics on the

"list" following yours. We will now hear perhaps more great fulminations on

how true SriVaishnavas will never praise Sankara (or "his grandpa", as

somebody else once said) and those who do so commit grave "apachAram" and

"AchArya-drOham"!

 

If I hear you right, Sri.Mani, I hear you now laying down a cardinal rule

for all of us members: "Hear ye all ! Praise to Sankara is the taboo of all

taboos on the "bhakti-list"!

 

And if you were running a similar list for discussing Newtonian physics,

Sri.Mani, I suppose you would say none should utter a single nice word for

Aristotle! Do I understand you right, Sri.Mani?

 

My posts on the LNKS seem to have irked the sensibilities of revered

SriVaishnavas on the list on more than one occasion now!

 

I think it is time to call it all off. I had no idea that my random

reflections could arouse so much religious partisan-ism on the list. Well,

you live and learn every day, I guess!

 

To my other friends on the list who were following my posts these many days,

I am sorry to say this to you, but we must leave it here.

 

If you remember, we quoted a lot of poetry, both Sanskrit and English,

during the course of my LNKS posts. It was good fun too, isn't it? Here is

one more now to end (or abort!) it all and which you may all like to ponder

in a sober moment some evening:

 

"Why, all the saints and sages who discuss'd

Of the Two Worlds so learnedly are thrust

Like foolish prophets forth: their Words to scorn

Are scatter'd, and their mouths are stopt with Dust."

(Edward

Fitzerald)

 

adiyEn dAsAnu-dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Sri Sudarshan wrote:

> If I hear you right, Sri.Mani, I hear you now laying down a cardinal rule

> for all of us members: "Hear ye all ! Praise to Sankara is the taboo of all

> taboos on the "bhakti-list"!

 

I'll make a short comment here and leave it at that.

 

No, I am not saying that praise of Sankara is at all taboo.

I respect Sankara deeply and find his works insightful.

However, please recognize that this list is dedicated to

the Sri Vaishnava tradition. I felt that mere praise of Sankara

(and subsequent denigration of other Vaidikas, such as mImAmsakAs,

as "enemies from within"), without proper context, required a

response.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

Srimathe Ramanuja Namah:

 

I found the 61st slOka of Swami Desikan's Yathiraja Sapthathi, most

appropriate in this context.

 

If one has the habit of enjoying the works of Ramanuja comes across other

works,

he will not take interest in them; Why? These (latter) works emphasise the

trifles;

while doing so, the words, logic and trend are all tough and they traverse

arduous

routes. The main theme will be presented in such a manner that the whole

exercise

will look like a heap of many torn pieces of cloth, knotted together here

and there.

One would not find anything to relish.

 

After all, Siva bears, on the locks of his head, the pearl-filled Ganga

river. But will he

ever compromise or agree to receive and bear a street-gutter in which frogs

flourish?

 

(Translation by Dr. VN Vedantha Desikan, from Sri Nrusimhapriya)

 

Regards

 

Narayana Narayana

 

Narayana dAsan

[Guest guest]

Mani wrote:

 

" I felt that mere praise of Sankara

(and subsequent denigration of other Vaidikas, such as mImAmsakAs,

as "enemies from within"), without proper context, required a

response."

 

With the feeling that Mani's comments are too succinct,I would

like to add a couple of lines of explanation.

 

Swami EmberumAnAr in the <Laghu Poorvapaksha> to the SrI BhAshya

states emphatically that both PUrva-MImAmsA and Uttara-MImAmsA

(VEdAnta)form a continuous whole;and for this statement he

brings forward the authority of VrttikAra SwAmi BOdhAyana himself:

 

<Vakhshyati cha karma-brahma-mImAmsayO-raika-SAstryam,"samhita-

metat SArIrakam JaiminIyEna shodasha-lakshaNEnEti,SAstraikatva-

siddhih">

 

Since VEdAnta is connected to Jaimini's 16-chaptered

Poorva-MImAmsa,they both form a single SAstra.

 

And further on SwAmi EmberumAnAr clearly explains

that while PoorvaMImAmsa details the <ArAdhana-

prakAra>(the method of worship),VEdAnta deals with

the <ArAdhya swaroopa> (the nature of the Deity

which is worshipped).Thus they are forever inter-connected,

and the use of the phrase "enemies from within" in

respect of MImAmsakas would hardly be appropriate.

 

Also since in Sankara's philosophy there exists only a

single attributeless entity,the question of worship and

worshipper,which presupposes the existence of a second

entity would not arise.

 

I am also an admirer of Sankara's poetry and clarity of

expression as in Bhaja Govindam and other Stotras.But

his philosophy is a totally different matter.

 

EmberumAnAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

BHARAT